Elements of confusion seem to accompany the use of the term inquiry
in science education. Here, I wish to identify what I think are two such
sources of confusion-the lack of a definition for inquiry and an
inappropriate view of the importance of open inquiry-and also discuss
how an inappropriate view of the role of open inquiry may be causing
unnecessary frustration.

A Definition for Inquiry

I find it rather strange that the science education community
continues to engage heavily in discussion of aspects of inquiry learning
in the apparent absence of a definition for the term (e.g., Abrams,
Southerland & Silva, 2008; Johnson & Smith, 2008). How can there
possibly be a fruitful conversation about a term if there is no
guarantee that the participants in the discussion share the same meaning
for it? Certainly, descriptions of the features of inquiry have been
made available (e.g., National Research Council, 2000), but if such
frameworks were sufficient we surely wouldn't have such a
"lack of agreement about what constitutes an inquiry-based
approach" (Buck, Bretz & Towns, 2008, p. 52).

What is inquiry in the context of science education? In particular,
how can we tell if a learning experience in which students are engaged
can be considered an inquiry activity or not? In a recent journal
conversation, I have suggested that "an inquiry activity is one
that requires students to answer a scientific question by analysing raw,
empirical data themselves" ("Inquiry [continued]," 2008,
p. 31). I tend to take it for granted that, if students are analysing
data, they will also be drawing conclusions and be prepared to justify
them. Also, I use the term activity in the broadest sense to include
even projects that span an extended period of time. A detailed rationale
for this definition may be found at "Inquiry Learning: A
Discussion" (2007-2008), which is a freely available, online,
composite reproduction of the ongoing journal discussion mentioned. I
might briefly note here, though, that this definition precludes the
answering of socioscientific questions, although scientific inquiry can
certainly make a contribution to decision-making on socioscientific
issues. It also follows that an activity such as the library retrieval
of information that comprises the conclusions of others is insufficient
to be regarded an inquiry activity. Does this definition provide the
criteria necessary to alleviate confusion as to whether or not students
are engaged in inquiry in the science classroom? Can it perhaps be
improved?

Open Inquiry

In "Inquiry Learning: A Discussion" (2007-2008), I also
made mention of inquiry being possible at any of four levels, depending
upon which combination of question, method, and conclusion is supplied
to students: Confirmation (Level 1), structured (Level 2), directed
(Level 3), and open (Level 4). In the case of the latter, students
answer their own questions using a methodology that they also devise
themselves. Importantly, I distinguished between the amount of direction
provided to students and the amount of guidance they receive, providing
evidence for why unguided learning might be considered poor pedagogy.

With this as background, I then provided a rationale for doubting
the role for open inquiry at higher (e.g., the post-compulsory) levels
of education. My doubts were based mainly on my personal experience,
over a considerable number of years, with offering open inquiry learning
opportunities to high school students, and I noted that my stance would
certainly be weakened if I could find examples of open inquiry being
employed to teach science proper at the university level.

I was anxious to hear what others may have to say about this
reasoning, as it appeared to be breaking new ground in so much as I had
not seen others questioning the role of open inquiry in science
education. So, it was with a feeling of some relief that I then found
that Settlage (2007) had indeed also done just that, although in far
more severe terms, when he asked us to speak out against open inquiry at
all levels. He pointed out that it is a myth that open inquiry should
sit at the top of the hierarchy of acceptable inquiry teaching
approaches (i.e., that less-directed inquiry is the purest form of
inquiry and something to be preferred), that methods textbooks
inappropriately propagate the view of open inquiry as the ideal to be
strived for, and that although many agree with this view, such an
opinion is rarely expressed. He continued by saying that implementing
open inquiry with any regularity is generally impractical and that there
is negligible evidence to support a faith in it. Finally, he asserted
that open inquiry occurs uncommonly, is pointless and misguided, and is
a myth deserving of extinction.

Now, I think this raises a second very important source of
confusion. Inquiry has been categorized by the assignment of levels
based simply upon what is supplied to students (i.e., the level of
direction provided to them). We make a grave mistake if we then
interpret these levels in terms of "the higher the level number,
the better," which is a completely different concept and
illustrated nicely by S. Abell (personal communication, March 5, 2009):

Returning to the role for open inquiry, the only example of it
being used at the tertiary level that I have found thus far is Johnson
and Smith (2008). However, there is a twist; and a major twist at that.
The questions students ask (e.g., How do the day and night evaporation
rates from a grassy parade ground compare? How does indoor temperature
in campus buildings vary with floor level? How does grass root length
differ between fertilized and unfertilized fields?) would be equally
applicable to the elementary classroom, and the conclusions of these
inquiries do not appear to be a part of the content of the course.
Rather, open inquiry seems to be used to teach experimental design and
data analysis (especially involving statistics) at the undergraduate
level.

I tend to take (presently, at least) a more moderate approach than
Settlage (2007), providing for the notion that open inquiry might be
able to play a useful role at perhaps the primary and middle school
levels where the equipment that students require to investigate their
questions is typically more readily available, but doubting its value at
higher levels, a position that also appears to be in accord with
Abell's claim that open inquiry at the college level is
"absolutely unobtainable" (Friedrichsen, 2008, p. 75). I make
these comments in the context of open inquiry being used in standard
science classes, as opposed to special opportunities that might be made
available to students in the form of a science club or
purposely-designed course (e.g., Schwebach, 2008).

At the same time, though, I'm seeking to clearly identify the
benefits that might be associated with students doing open inquiry
during the compulsory years of education, say. If open inquiry is not
necessary for the development of cognitive outcomes, perhaps its impact
can be in the affective domain, as suggested by Yager ("Inquiry
[Continued]," 2008). Perhaps Yager (1998), a passionate advocate of
"science for all" and science/technology/society approaches,
had it right some years ago when he likened science to sport:

Unfortunately, however, our students rarely get to play-rarely get
to do real Science. ... Instead, school science means 13 years of
learning the rules of the game. ... If potential athletes had to wait 13
years before playing a single scrimmage, playing a single set, a single
quarter, how many would be clamoring to be involved (p. 77).

If open inquiry, then, is indeed more appropriate at some stages of
education than at others, we can readily see why some teachers might be
experiencing unnecessary frustration. Being pressured to implement a
learning approach that neither they nor anyone else can justify for the
particular stage of education at which they are working must surely be
confusing and stressful. Perhaps we should indeed be satisfied, and even
congratulating ourselves, if our classroom practices are such that Level
2 and especially Level 3 inquiry are prominent features.

I continue to deliberate on these issues, using as many means as
possible to collect evidence, including seeking responses to this piece.
For example, during the past couple of years I've been conducting
Inquiry Learning workshops for practicing teachers across Australia.
During these workshops I have shared thinking along the lines being
presented here and am yet to find anyone who has seen reason to
disagree.

I also recently shared my concern with MacKenzie, whose recent
editorials (MacKenzie, 2008a, 2008b) appeared to be advocating the use
of open learning in an unqualified way. I asked if she uses open inquiry
in college/university science courses, if she is aware of colleagues or
others who are doing so, and if she can point me to examples in the
literature of open inquiry being used in university science proper
courses, preferably with evidence supporting the practice.
Interestingly, I have not received a reply, which appears to leave open
the possibility that such writing is indeed promoting the rhetoric that
Settlage (2007) warns us about.

Yager, R. (1988). Never playing the game. The Science Teacher,
55(9), 77.

Peter Eastwell

Science Time Education

www.ScienceTime.com.au

Response

I appreciate Eastwell's perspective regarding apparent
confusion surrounding inquiry in science classrooms; however, I want to
address each of the points Eastwell sets forth in his letter. Eastwell
claims there is no clear definition of inquiry amongst science
educators. Second, he joins Settlage (2007) in questioning the value of
open inquiry in science classrooms of all ages, especially at the
university level. Finally, since there is a paucity of research for open
inquiry at the university level, Eastwell questions its validity.

Although there are a multitude of descriptions of inquiry, the
National Research Council (1996, 2000) reached a consensus from science
educators, scientists, and public stakeholders regarding an explanation
for inquiry. According to the National Science Education Standards,
"Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists
study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence
derived from their work." Inquiry also refers to the activities of
students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific
ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural
world (NRC, 1996, p. 23). Inquiry is a process where students actively
learn and investigate their world through making observations, asking
questions, and searching for answers (McBride et al., 2004).
Inquiry-based teaching can take many forms across its continuum whether
they be simulations, problem based learning, laboratories, or research
based on a question the student is posing, e.g., Is there a scientific
basis for the practice of Reiki? Is there evidence that stress creates
gray hair in individuals?

Learning science is something students do, not something that gets
done to them (NRC, 1996). This style of teaching facilitates a more
accurate representation of the nature of science (Abd-El-Khalick et al.,
2004). Students who experience a primarily inquiry-based curriculum
often have a deeper understanding of the nature of science instead of
simply viewing science as a body of facts to be memorized (McBride et
al., 2004).

This process of discovery by learning through inquiry-based
teaching is authentic science and it does not reinforce an
"illusion of certainty" to students where they might believe
that science produces unchangeable and definite proof (Bencze &
Hodson, 1999). The more opportunities there are for students to question
their findings, the more opportunities there are to promote student
learning (Glasson, 1989). Eastwell states that doing research on a topic
is not open inquiry. Those scientists who specialize in examining
evidence through written documents would disagree.

Finally, Eastwell claims there is no data demonstrating that open
inquiry works at the university level. Open inquiry is the hallmark of
the university science experience, especially at the graduate level. Do
we need evidence that research is beneficial to those pursuing masters
and doctoral degrees? Does there need to be research done to demonstrate
the efficacy of research experiences for the undergraduate student?
Eastwell provides examples of questions he finds inappropriate for the
university level. Again, applied scientists continually work with
questions that may be simplistic but are far reaching when product
development is concerned. Open inquiry provides these experiences for
students and therefore do they need to be substantiated when university
researchers and applied scientists investigate these issues daily? Open
inquiry is a process. Do we question the applicability of music majors
to engage in performance? Do we question the appropriateness of art
majors to produce works of art? Isn't this actually the same sort
of experience we want our students to do as science majors? If they
aren't science majors, shouldn't the world of doing science be
made available to them?

Eastwell wants data that inquiry works. Research demonstrates that
inquiry-based teaching improves students' abilities to perform on
higher-level conceptual test questions (Chang & Barufaldi, 1997). In
addition, success in inquiry-based classes is more closely linked to
one's ability to problem-solve and think critically as opposed to
one's previous experience in the subject matter (Johnson &
Lawson, 1998). Students who experience inquiry-based learning show
significantly more content knowledge and process skills than those
experiencing traditional instruction (Taraban et al., 2007). Not only do
test scores support these findings, but survey data has also revealed
that students feel as if they learn more through the inquiry-based
teaching as opposed to traditional instruction (Krystyniak &
Heikkienen, 2007; Taraban et al., 2007).

I believe open inquiry is a necessity for science courses to
provide the relevant, needed experiences for our students. Inquiry does
occur on a continuum and all levels of inquiry need to be incorporated
into classes. Open inquiry should not be the only way to teach science
at the university level, but it has its place. University courses
providing science as a set of facts do a disservice to our students.
Inquiry is not new. Inquiry is the hallmark of how science is done and
therefore has a place in all science classrooms. Clarity exists for
inquiry in the science classroom at all levels because without inquiry,
are the science courses really scientific?

Chang, C.Y. & Barufaldi, J.P. (1997). Initiating change in
students' achievement and alternative frameworks through a problem
solving based instructional model: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago,
IL, March 21-24.

Glasson, G.E. (1989). The effects of hands-on and teacher
demonstration laboratory methods on science achievement in relation to
reasoning ability and prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 26, 121-131.

Johnson, M. A. & Lawson, E. (1998). What are the relative
effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement
in expository and inquiry classes? Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 35(1), 89-103.

Why do science educators think that open inquiry-the highest
level-is the best? Best for what is not clear. Is this the best way
for students to learn science? What do students actually learn from
doing open inquiry? I don't think there is good empirical evidence
here. Do students learn science concepts? Not usually. Do they
learn the nature of science? Pretty much no. Do they learn how to
set up experiments? Maybe.